Executive Order January 29, 2025 Doc #2025-01957 Executive Order 14155

Withdrawing the United States From the World Health Organization

Foreign Policy Healthcare Government Reform

💡

In Simple Terms

The U.S. will leave the World Health Organization. It will stop sending money and staff to the group.

Summary

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). This decision was based on perceived failures by the WHO, including its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of necessary reforms, and political influences from member states. The order revokes a previous retraction of the U.S. withdrawal notice and halts U.S. funding and personnel support to the WHO. Additionally, the order calls for the establishment of new mechanisms within the National Security Council to protect public health and biosecurity, and for identifying alternative partners to take over roles previously filled by the WHO.

Official Record

Federal Register Published

Signed by the President

January 20, 2025

Published in Federal Register

View on Federal Register View Printed Version (PDF)

January 29, 2025

Document #2025-01957

Analysis & Impact

💡 How This May Affect You

The decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) could have various implications for different groups of Americans, affecting their daily lives, finances, and opportunities in several ways. Here's a breakdown of how this might play out for each group:

Working Families and Individuals

For working families, the withdrawal could mean changes in how global health threats are monitored and managed within the U.S. Without the WHO's guidance and resources, there might be delays or gaps in accessing information about international health emergencies, which could affect public health responses. This could lead to increased health risks if new diseases spread unchecked or are not communicated effectively.

Small Business Owners

Small business owners, particularly those in the health and travel sectors, might experience uncertainty. The withdrawal could impact global supply chains for medical supplies and pharmaceuticals, potentially leading to increased costs or shortages. Businesses that rely on international travel and trade might also face challenges if the U.S. becomes less integrated into global health monitoring systems, leading to potential travel restrictions or health-related trade barriers.

Students and Recent Graduates

For students and recent graduates in health-related fields, the withdrawal could affect educational and career opportunities. With the U.S. no longer participating in WHO programs, there may be fewer international collaboration opportunities, such as internships or research partnerships. This could limit exposure to global health practices and reduce career prospects in international health organizations.

Retirees and Seniors

Retirees and seniors, who often have more health needs, might be concerned about the impact on public health infrastructure. The WHO plays a role in setting international health standards and guidelines, which can influence domestic health policies. Changes in these standards could affect the quality and availability of health services, particularly in managing international health threats like pandemics.

Different Geographic Regions

Urban Areas: Urban regions, with dense populations, could be more vulnerable to health crises if global monitoring and response systems are weakened. Public health departments in cities might need to increase efforts to compensate for the lack of WHO support.
Suburban Areas: Suburban areas might experience less immediate impact, but residents could face indirect effects such as changes in healthcare costs or availability if national health policies shift as a result of the withdrawal.
Rural Areas: Rural communities, which often have limited healthcare resources, might struggle more with the absence of WHO support. These areas could face challenges in accessing vaccines and treatments that are distributed through global partnerships.

General Implications

Overall, the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO could lead to a reevaluation of how the country engages with global health issues. While the U.S. government may seek alternative partnerships and strategies, the transition could create gaps in health security and response capabilities. This situation might require increased domestic investment in health infrastructure to maintain the same level of public health safety and preparedness.

🏢 Key Stakeholders

Primary Beneficiaries:

U.S. Federal Budget:
- The U.S. government may benefit from reduced financial commitments to the WHO, potentially reallocating funds to domestic health initiatives or other priorities. This aligns with fiscal conservatives' goals of reducing international spending.
Domestic Health Organizations:
- These groups may receive increased funding and attention as the U.S. seeks to develop alternative channels for global health security and pandemic preparedness, potentially enhancing their capacity and influence.

Those Facing Challenges:

Global Health Community:
- The withdrawal may lead to reduced coordination and collaboration, impacting global health initiatives and potentially hindering efforts to address transnational health crises.
U.S. Public Health Experts:
- Experts may face challenges in accessing international health data and collaboration opportunities, potentially limiting their ability to respond to global health threats effectively.

Industries, Sectors, or Professions Most Impacted:

Pharmaceutical and Biotech Industries:
- These industries may experience disruptions in international cooperation for drug and vaccine development, potentially affecting global distribution and innovation pipelines.
Travel and Tourism Industry:
- The industry might face increased uncertainty and potential restrictions as global health coordination weakens, affecting international travel policies and safety protocols.

Government Agencies or Departments Involved in Implementation:

Department of State:
- This department will be responsible for managing the diplomatic aspects of the withdrawal, including informing international bodies and negotiating new health agreements.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB):
- The OMB will oversee the reallocation of funds previously designated for WHO contributions, ensuring alignment with new domestic and international health strategies.

Interest Groups, Advocacy Organizations, or Lobbies with Strong Positions:

Public Health Advocacy Groups:
- These groups are likely to oppose the withdrawal, advocating for continued U.S. engagement in global health governance to ensure comprehensive and coordinated responses to health threats.
Conservative Policy Think Tanks:
- Organizations focused on reducing international commitments and prioritizing national sovereignty may support the withdrawal, viewing it as a step towards more autonomous U.S. health policy.

📈 What to Expect

Short-term (3-12 months):

Immediate Implementation Steps:
- The United States will notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the WHO leadership of its withdrawal.
- The Secretary of State will halt any negotiations related to the WHO Pandemic Agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations.
- The Office of Management and Budget will pause the transfer of funds to the WHO and reassign U.S. personnel associated with the organization.
Early Visible Changes or Effects:
- The U.S. will begin redirecting funds previously allocated to the WHO towards domestic and alternative international health initiatives.
- There may be an initial disruption in global health coordination, particularly in areas where the WHO plays a central role, such as infectious disease tracking and response.
- Public and political discourse will likely intensify, with debates around the merits and drawbacks of this withdrawal.
Potential Initial Reactions or Challenges:
- Domestic and international criticism could arise from public health officials, allied nations, and advocacy groups who view the WHO as a critical global health entity.
- Logistical challenges in reassigning personnel and funds may delay the effective transition to new health partnerships.
- There might be legal challenges or congressional pushback aimed at reversing or modifying the executive order.

Long-term (1-4 years):

Broader Systemic Changes:
- The U.S. withdrawal could weaken the WHO's financial and operational capacity, potentially affecting global health initiatives and responses to health emergencies.
- New alliances and partnerships may form as the U.S. seeks alternative channels for international health collaboration, possibly leading to a fragmented global health landscape.
Cumulative Effects on Society, Economy, or Policy Landscape:
- Domestically, the U.S. might experience increased investment in public health infrastructure and pandemic preparedness as it seeks to establish independent capabilities.
- Economically, the reallocation of WHO funds could bolster domestic health industries and innovation, though it may also lead to inefficiencies due to the loss of WHO-coordinated efforts.
- Politically, this move may strain U.S. relationships with allies who value WHO collaboration, potentially impacting broader diplomatic and trade negotiations.
Potential for Modification, Expansion, or Reversal by Future Administrations:
- Future administrations could seek to rejoin the WHO if they perceive the withdrawal as detrimental to U.S. interests or global health security.
- Modifications to this policy might include partial re-engagement with the WHO or increased involvement in alternative multilateral health initiatives.
- The policy's longevity will likely depend on its perceived effectiveness in enhancing U.S. health security and international standing, as well as the political landscape and public opinion.

Overall, while the executive order aims to assert U.S. independence in global health matters, it carries significant implications for international collaboration and domestic health policy that will unfold over time.

📚 Historical Context

The decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) via Executive Order 14155 is a significant move in the realm of international relations and public health policy. This action can be contextualized by examining historical precedents, the evolution of U.S. involvement in international organizations, and the broader implications for global health governance.

Historical Precedents

Previous Withdrawals from International Organizations:
- UNESCO: The U.S. has withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) twice, first in 1984 under President Ronald Reagan, citing politicization and mismanagement, and again in 2017 under President Donald Trump, over perceived anti-Israel bias.
- Paris Climate Agreement: In 2017, President Trump announced the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, arguing it disadvantaged the U.S. economically. This decision was reversed by President Joe Biden in 2021.
Initial WHO Withdrawal Attempt:
- In 2020, President Trump initiated the process to withdraw from the WHO, criticizing its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and alleged bias towards China. This decision was reversed by President Biden in 2021, signaling a return to multilateral engagement.

Building Upon, Modifying, or Reversing Existing Policies

Reversal of Biden's Policies: The 2025 executive order revokes Executive Order 13987, which was part of President Biden's efforts to re-engage with the WHO and strengthen U.S. leadership in global health. This marks a significant shift towards unilateralism in handling global health issues.
Focus on National Security: The order emphasizes the establishment of new structures within the National Security Council to address public health and biosecurity, indicating a shift from international cooperation to a more national security-oriented approach.

Relevant Historical Patterns

Tension Between Unilateralism and Multilateralism: The U.S. has historically oscillated between unilateral actions and multilateral cooperation. This action reflects a recurring pattern where administrations prioritize national sovereignty and financial concerns over collaborative international engagement.
Financial Contributions and Burden Sharing: Concerns over disproportionate financial contributions to international organizations have been a longstanding issue. Similar arguments were made during the Reagan administration's withdrawal from UNESCO and Trump's critiques of NATO spending.

Unique or Noteworthy Aspects

Timing Amidst Global Health Challenges: This withdrawal comes at a time when global cooperation is crucial for addressing ongoing and future health crises, such as pandemics and biosecurity threats, making it a particularly bold and contentious move.
Impact on Global Health Governance: The U.S. has historically been a major contributor to the WHO, both financially and in terms of leadership. This withdrawal could significantly impact the WHO's capacity to respond to global health emergencies and influence the organization's future direction.
Potential for Domestic and International Reactions: Domestically, this action may face opposition from public health experts and global health advocates. Internationally, it could strain relations with allies and impact the U.S.'s standing as a leader in global health.

In summary, the decision to withdraw from the WHO is a significant departure from the collaborative international health efforts seen in recent years. It reflects broader historical patterns of U.S. engagement with international organizations, emphasizing national interests and financial equity. This action will likely have profound implications for global health governance and the U.S.'s role on the world stage.